Apple Added to Bluetooth Patent Lawsuit

[MacRumors]

Bloomberg reports that Apple Inc, Dell Inc, Sony Corp and five other technology companies were added to an ongoing lawsuit over patents covering Bluetooth technology.

The suit threatens the ability of the computer and device makers to deliver wireless capabilities to customers. The companies are accused of infringing four patents covering technology that lets users exchange data among mobile phones, personal computers and other devices without using cables.

The suit is being brought by Washington Research Foundation, a non-profit organization. The suit is specifically aimed at CSR, the maker of the Bluetooth chips used in Apple's computers. CSR believes the "suit is without merit in relation to CSR's Bluetooth chips and CSR will defend its products rigorously."

[Superdrive]

If they are non-profit, what are they suing for anyways?

Hopefully, this won't stifle Bluetooth transfers etc., at worst it should just be an additional cost.

[iamcrazyed]

AH! I just pulled a muscle while rolling my eyes. GEEZ! One more stupid lawsuit like this and I'll need corrective surgery.

[johnee]

i hate to say this, but without patent protection, there would be very little innovation. many people say the open source movement is great and would suffice, but that's not true. patents help create a micro-economy within the industry, making many of the products you enjoy possible.

[Peace]

If CSR makes the chips why are they suing Apple et.al. ?

[princealfie]

Originally Posted by johnee

i hate to say this, but without patent protection, there would be very little innovation. many people say the open source movement is great and would suffice, but that's not true. patents help create a micro-economy within the industry, making many of the products you enjoy possible.

I hope that you are kidding seriously.

Corporate innovation are being stifled by patents honestly. That's why we have less innovation because people want to earn money off the same dang invention from 10 years ago.

So disagreement here.

[TheBobcat]

I think I might sue Apple. It seems to be the thing to do these days.

I'll do it when they announce Mac OS X: Bobcat.

[twoodcc]

Originally Posted by Superdrive

If they are non-profit, what are they suing for anyways?

my thoughts exactly......

hopefully this won't become a big deal....

[Gasu E.]

Originally Posted by Peace

If CSR makes the chips why are they suing Apple et.al. ?

It's legitimate to do this. However, typical boilerplate technology licensing agreements require the the licensor to assert that they fully own the intellectual rights and agree to indemnify the licensee in case of suits such as this.

[Gasu E.]

Originally Posted by Superdrive

If they are non-profit, what are they suing for anyways?

They are suing on behalf of the universities and other research organizations from Washington State that they claim to represent.

[TheBobcat]

Originally Posted by Peace

If CSR makes the chips why are they suing Apple et.al. ?

Because suing CSR wouldn't get you headlines. Suing virtually every big player in Bluetooth technology will however.

[epochblue]

Originally Posted by Peace

If CSR makes the chips why are they suing Apple et.al. ?

This is exactly the question I have. If Apple isn't knowingly infringing on the patent (CSR is), then why sue Apple? Deeper pockets?

[killmoms]

Originally Posted by epochblue

This is exactly the question I have. If Apple isn't knowingly infringing on the patent (CSR is), then why sue Apple? Deeper pockets?

Duh.

This is just like Creative waiting 5 years to sue Apple over the iPod's interface, or the content industry waiting until Google bought YouTube to sue over infringing content on the YouTube website. They only sue when there's enough money that they can get a fat settlement ('cause these things rarely go to court).

[clevin]

law is there, judge will decide, after all, they invented bloothtooth, they deserve the money, if they want to sue, fine, there is law, isn't there?

[Gasu E.]

Originally Posted by johnee

i hate to say this, but without patent protection, there would be very little innovation. many people say the open source movement is great and would suffice, but that's not true. patents help create a micro-economy within the industry, making many of the products you enjoy possible.

Patents are a flawed system. In contradiction of patent law, patents are often given to "inventions" that are obvious, not innovative. Patent inspectors are often not competent to tell the difference. Patents issued to obvious ideas creates an artificial barrier to competition and serves as a tax on consumers and the economy in general. Patents can be useful to incent true innovation, but only if the "burden of proof" of innovation on the applicant is high, and the period of exclusivity is not onerous.

[IEatApples]

Originally Posted by epochblue

This is exactly the question I have. If Apple isn't knowingly infringing on the patent (CSR is), then why sue Apple? Deeper pockets?

I'm thinking "PUBLICITY!"

[killmoms]

Originally Posted by clevin

law is there, judge will decide, after all, they invented bloothtooth, they deserve the money, if they want to sue, fine, there is law, isn't there?

No, they didn't invent Bluetooth. In these cases it's usually that some company or consortium has patented an obvious IDEA and never brought it to market. They just sit on the patent for "a method or means of relaying computer input data wirelessly" (as an example), and then wait for other people to come up with an actual product that falls into that purview. Then they sue to profit off someone else's actual work.

[Small White Car]

Originally Posted by princealfie

Corporate innovation are being stifled by patents honestly.

You should point this out to Apple. I'm sure they'll jump on the chance to release their patent on the iPod's click-wheel once you just explain to them how that will help their innovation!

[Maccus Aurelius]

God sues Apple Inc. and Apple Corp. for naming their companies after a product he invented millions of years ago. Apple countersues claiming it's God's fault that PC's comprise well over 90% of the market. Apple Corp countersues accusing God of gross negligence with regards to John Lennon. Cisco sues all three to make an obscure product known.

[TheBobcat]

Originally Posted by Small White Car

You should point this out to Apple. I'm sure they'll jump on the chance to release their patent on the iPod's click-wheel once you just explain to them how that will help their innovation!

While I know it doesn't legally matter, I support companies that actually make a product and contribute to the advancement of technological markets in patent cases over patent hoarders and squatters that produce nothing but lawsuits.

The iPod pushed the MP3 market to new heights, and Apple had a lot of key innovations in doing that, and those should not be able to be simply copied to another player. But these firms that just collect patents and wait for an applicable technology and manufacturers with deep pockets to appear so they can sue them, is in my opinion killing innovation.

[Maccus Aurelius]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't bluetooth technology been included with macs before the Intel models? I could've sworn I saw a bluetooth icon on my friend's powerbook toolbar. This is a pretty damn long time to suddenly decide to sue. Also, who builds and provides the bluetooth chips for the computers anyway?

[corywoolf]

I wish this would end bluetooth and kick-start wireless high-speed USB. We have the technology, but first the leading company will want to charge an insane amount for the wireless high-speed USB. Bluetooth is overrated, I am glad Apple never released wireless BT headphones. Which makes me wonder BTW, how will the headphones connect to the iPhone and where does the SIM chip go?

[corywoolf]

Originally Posted by Maccus Aurelius

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't bluetooth technology been included with macs before the Intel models? I could've sworn I saw a bluetooth icon on my friend's powerbook toolbar. This is a pretty damn long time to suddenly decide to sue. Also, who builds and provides the bluetooth chips for the computers anyway?

Good point, it has been in macs since around early 2002 I believe.

[Rocketman]

Lawsuits are public documents. Where's the raw data? If the suit is being amended to add Apple, there have been motions leading to this. Where's the docket?

Rocketman

[wildmac]

Originally Posted by killmoms

No, they didn't invent Bluetooth. In these cases it's usually that some company or consortium has patented an obvious IDEA and never brought it to market. They just sit on the patent for "a method or means of relaying computer input data wirelessly" (as an example), and then wait for other people to come up with an actual product that falls into that purview. Then they sue to profit off someone else's actual work.

This, or, a group of lawyers buys up those patents for pennies on a dollar, and then proceeds to sue the daylights out of anyone and everyone.

It's easy to fix this system. The originator should be the only one able to sue, not one of these "holding companies", AND the "method" patents need to be disallowed. Actual technology should be required. Otherwise you could patent "toast" regardless of whether you use a toaster, and oven, or a Bic lighter to make your toast.